
Supreme Court may approve first-ever taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school
The Supreme Court appeared set Wednesday to allow Oklahoma to fund a religious charter school, potentially transforming K-12 education across the country.
The eight justices splintered along ideological lines during oral arguments in the blockbuster case over whether the Sooner State's charter school board can approve the application of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
With Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing from the case, the decision could come down to Chief Justice John Roberts, who was largely quiet during arguments but sounded sympathetic to St. Isidore's application.
'All the religious school is saying is don't exclude us on account of our religion,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued. 'Our cases have made very clear — I think those are some of the most important cases we've had — of saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second-class.'
'When you have a program that's open to all comers except religion,' he went on, 'that seems like rank discrimination against religion.'
5 Chief Justice John Roberts was largely quiet during oral arguments, but asked tough questions to a lawyer for Oklahoma's attorney general.
REUTERS
5 Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from arguments in the consolidated case on Wednesday.
POOL/AFP via Getty Images
In June 2023, the five-member Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore's operation application in a 3–2 vote. A feud quickly emerged, pitting Republicans in the state against one another.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Board in response, arguing the approval was illegal and fretting that the move would 'open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.'
Both the Trump administration and Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt have sided with the charter school board and St. Isidore's, which filed a separate lawsuit against Drummond that was consolidated into Wednesday's hearing. (The aspiring virtual charter school is named after the Roman Catholic patron saint of students.)
5 St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is attempting to become the first overtly religious charter school.
stisidorevirtualschool.org
During oral arguments, Roberts asked only a few questions, but his most pointed one was aimed at Drummond's side.
'What do you do with Fulton [v. City of Philadelphia] — the state agency that refused to deal with the religious adoption services. We held they couldn't engage in that discrimination,' the chief justice asked. 'How is that different from what we have here?'
Gregory Garre, arguing for Drummond, responded that charter schools are 'controlled in fundamental ways' by the state that other institutions are not
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh raised similar points likening the arguments to a 2021 decision in which the court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia officials violated the First Amendment by suspending its contract with a Catholic social services agency that declined to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.
'You've urged us to say public schools are different from other contractors, like Catholic Charities in Fulton. And so we need a test, a legal test,' Gorsuch protested at one point.
5 The case could have major implications for charter schools across the country.
Josh Morgan-USA TODAY
Michael McGinley, an attorney for St. Isidore's, contended that the aspiring charter school was actually created by the private sector and is not exercising an 'exclusive government function.'
'It was created by private actors, and it is controlled by a private board and consists of entirely private actors. It thus lacks the essential elements of a government entity,' he argued. 'Constitutional analysis turns on substance, not labels.'
That didn't sit well with the three liberal justices on the high court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noting that the state of Oklahoma approves the curriculum for its charter schools and Justice Elena Kagan calling them 'state-run institutions.'
'They give the charter schools a good deal of curricular flexibility,' she insisted. 'With respect to a whole variety of things, the state is running these schools and insisting upon certain requirements.'
Jackson also hit back at the notion that St. Isidore's would be facing religious discrimination if it gets denied charter school status.
'As I see it, it's not being denied a benefit that everyone else gets. It's being denied a benefit that no one else gets, which is the ability to establish a religious public school,' she argued.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that in order for students to attend the school, they'd 'have to accept the teachings of the church with respect to certain principles.'
'St. Isidore allows exceptions for anyone that doesn't want to attend mass,' McGinley countered. 'In addition, it does not require students to affirm its religious beliefs.'
5 Protesters on both sides of the charter school fight gathered outside the Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments.
Josh Morgan-USA TODAY
Barrett did not explain why she recused herself. However, she had taught at the University of Notre Dame's law school for about 15 years, and the school's religious liberty clinic has been representing St. Isidore's.
In the event of a 4–4 decision, the lower court ruling would stand, which in this case is the Oklahoma Supreme Court's 6–2 ruling that state law and the US Constitution prohibit taxpayer funding for religious schools.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the consolidated case of OK Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond by the end of June.
The consolidated case is among the most high-profile forthcoming decisions on the Supreme Court's docket this term.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message' Jackson, one of the court's most liberal justices, wrote that her colleagues may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.

Wall Street Journal
29 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
It's the Republicans, Not Musk, Who Are Serious About Cutting Spending
Elon Musk and House Republicans both promised to tackle federal spending. It turns out only one of them was serious, and it wasn't Musk. Musk, who broke with President Trump this week after labeling Republicans' reconciliation bill a 'disgusting abomination,' might claim some authority. As leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, he was the public face of Trump's assault on government.


Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
'Right down the line': Medicaid reform in 'big, beautiful bill' divides lawmakers by party
Medicaid reform in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has drawn a partisan line through Congress. Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program. Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided. "This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. "They're pushing the agenda that we're cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It's people that actually shouldn't be on it, illegals that shouldn't be on it. We're reforming it." The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs. But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work. "The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump's championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production. "These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. Blumenthal added he is "very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts" for "wealthy billionaires." New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an "honest conversation" about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that's not the reality of this bill. "People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive," Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is "nothing beautiful" about Trump's "big, beautiful bill." "This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That's what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families," Merkley said. The national debt stands at more than $36.2 trillion as of June 5, according to the Fox Business, based on data from the Treasury Department. The CBO's report this week also estimated Trump's bill will cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while raising deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.